Engines of Innovation

All about the Pratt & Whitney F135 and the (cancelled) General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2919
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post14 Jun 2018, 16:22

steve2267 wrote:A few years ago, I recall most sources stating the F135 engine produced 43,000lb thrust in full reheat. Then many documents, the Air Force, F-35 Fast Facts, started referring to the F135 being a "40,000lb class" engine. Which is it?

If this 10% increase is 40,0000 + 10% = 44,000 lb, but it was (is) really a 43,000lb motor, then this "+10%" only getting you to 44,000lb seems a bit "meh" to me.

But if it is 43,000 + 10% = 47,300lb... that's more like "WHOA!"

There have also been other statements in the past, using higher numbers than 43k (i.e. 45k and 48k.) 43k is a safe baseline to use, when you hear about x% improvements.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21746
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post14 Jun 2018, 16:33

First page of the mentioned PDF - if you download it - says this: [without NATOPS/Dash One information - GOOD LUCK!]
"...One is that the F135 needs to be able to generate up to 43,000lb (191.27kN) of thrust ‘wet’ (with afterburner) for the single-engine F-35..." download/file.php?id=19133 (6 page PDF 1.3Mb)


A lot of recent info is OLD - look page one: viewtopic.php?f=56&t=53226&p=376612&hilit=AFAIK#p376612
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1152
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post15 Jun 2018, 00:35

F135 growth option 2 was testing at 46.9k to 48.4k lb thrust. Should be in that range.
Offline

elvis1

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2018, 01:51

Unread post15 Jun 2018, 02:09

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 64863.html

Growth Option 2.0 incorporates the same suite of compressor and turbine technologies offered in the previously announced Growth Option 1.0, and also brings scaled advances in PTMS capacity while maintaining the same fuel burn (5-6 percent) and thrust improvements (6-10 percent) across the F-35 flight envelope. By selecting from the engine's full suite of available technologies, F-35 customers can chose the magnitude of PTMS improvements that the mission requires.


I wonder if the AETP improvements will ever show up.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1152
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post15 Jun 2018, 02:11

AETP: year 2025-2030
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21746
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post19 Jun 2018, 16:16

Directed-Energy Capability Targeted By Pratt F-35 Engine Upgrade Plan [BEST READ DETAILS at SOURCE]
15 Jun 2018 Guy Norris, Joe Anselmo & Michael Bruno

"Pratt & Whitney is refining its proposed upgrade path for the F135 Joint Strike Fighter engine to include increased power and thermal management (PTMS) capability following feedback on its initially proposed upgrade package from the F-35 Joint Program Office.

Additional power and thermal management capability will enable the use of directed-energy weapons and other advanced offensive and defensive systems and, if approved, would feature in an upgrade package called Growth Option 2.0 (GO2). Pratt & Whitney, which would roll PTMS into a suite of compressor and turbine enhancements originally proposed in the first upgrade package, G01, says the complete upgrade could be available within four years of getting the official go-ahead.

Growth Option 1.0, which was floated with the JPO in 2017, offered 5% fuel reductions and as much as 10% higher thrust. Offered as a cost neutral upgrade, it was always meant to form part of a longer term, two-stage improvement road map for the F-35 engine under plans first unveiled by the manufacturer in 2015. However, with the move to combine GO1 and 2 into a more complete enhancement package, Pratt is tailoring the revised proposal to closer match the F-35 upgrade road map recently outlined under the C2D2 continuous improvement strategy....

...The chief focus for these new AETD, AETP and XA101 engine cycles is the addition of a third air stream to provide either greater combat power or more range, depending on the phase of the mission. However, the “GO” upgrade packages can take advantage of the broader variable-cycle approach, says Matthew Bromberg, president of Pratt & Whitney Military Engines. “Adaptive refers to many other elements of the engine as well, not just the third stream. Yes, there is a third stream, but we are also looking at adaptive elements in controls and components inside the engine such as an adaptive turbine.”

“We have widened the aperture and are looking at adaptive elements across the engine,” he adds. “As these mature we will look at what we can do with the technology in an existing engine ,and that’s the concept in GO1. And GO2 is exactly the same thing. It just adds the PTMS capability which we missed last year. We didn’t have that in terms of the requirements when we packaged GO1, and that was the feedback we got from the customer. With a PTMS solution this can meet all the C2/D2 requirements, and I think that’s compelling.”

Designed to be a drop-in replacement for the current engine, the GO2 package will not require other system upgrades outside of the propulsion system. “There’s more we can do with Lockheed Martin and other suppliers if we go outside the engine, but this is all within the engine,” says Bromberg. Although providing few specifics he adds, “It is leveraging all the bleed systems, the generation systems.”..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/directe ... grade-plan
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1771
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post19 Jun 2018, 18:59

Over in the nickname thread... was "shark" ever mentioned? I don't recall a modern jet fighter, or any, for that matter, nicknamed "shark." I recall the Huns that flew in and out of the CT guard unit @ Bradley Int'l always had "Shark" call signs...

But now if PTSM and G02 come to fruition... I am ready for some

Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1152
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post01 Jul 2018, 11:38

Growth 1A for F-35B. 5% increase in hover thrust besides the 10% increase in overall thrust.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... e-upgrades
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1733
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post01 Jul 2018, 12:04

Why all the thrust improvements for the F-35?
Don't get me wrong, I love having more power, but normally if power is more than adequate, engine improvements are usually done to extend engine life. The F-16V for example is being offered with the PW-229 EPE, no thrust increase despite the use of F-135 technology on it. So I'd expect it to have a very long service life.

So is it:
a. projected weight of future F-35 blocks are expected to increase

b. F-35's are expected to take on more A-A roles due to the small number of F-22s

c. Japan, Korea,Indonesia and Turkey seem to be keen on making super agile indigenous 5th gen fighters tailored for A-A, an F-35A with 48,000 lbs of thrust can really set a bar so high that they may just call it quits and buy the new super F-35s.

d. The DOD just got tired of people calling the F-35 a turkey and decided to just shut them up forever. Sounds far fetched but I remember Paul Metz saying that the Eagle Mafia really wanted the best dogfighting airplane from ATF program and may have contributed in the decision for selecting the F-22. So yes the USAF have some Pride and Ego in them too. Nothing wrong with that as long as it's in moderation.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2474
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post01 Jul 2018, 12:57

Primarily A but perhaps some attributable to B. I don't see C and D as being realistic, or at least they're more far fetched. With respect to option B, that's tricky. The US seems to be sticking to the narrative that the F-35 isn't meant for dogfights, but instead BVR kills via stealth and sensors. That wouldn't require as much thrust.

OTOH, until the F-35 manages an air to air kill it will probably always suffer from the F-16 vs. F-35 "Test pilot admits F-35 can't dogfight" nonsense. You and I know that's BS, but perception is reality... and right now there's still that perception out there. Whatever the case, I and likely every F-35 pilot will welcome more thrust..
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1733
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post01 Jul 2018, 14:35

Yeah I think A is the reason. But what can they possibly add to the F-35 to make it heavier?
DAS and EOTS will be upgraded, so are the new hardware pieces substantially heavier?

Adding DIRCM and DI weapons may have a substantial weight increase.

The more I think about C, the more I think its not far fetched.

So far the KF-X proposals seem to have incredible T/W ratios and Wing loading properties, combine that with all the advanced 5th gen aerodynamic practices and you got yourself a real show stopper.

Japan's JTD-X program has 3D TVC albeit the prototype has incredibly low T/W ratios,

India's AMCA program has Super maneuverability as a KPP, TVC is also reportedly in the design

Turkey's TF-X also has a high agility Delta Canard design proposed.


So if the US suddenly rolls out an F-35A, with all the bells and whistles, $90M a pop, and is indistinguishable from a Raptor in performance between 250 knots all the way to 500 knots, sea level to FL250. (because apparently everyone with an indigenous 5th gen design seem to want Raptor like kinematics )

Then the F-35 remains to be competitive against all of them even in performance aspects.


By the way I think the USAF's unofficial mantra is. "We'll kill you BVR, but don't think for one second that you'll be better off if you can get to the merge cause we can beat you there too". It applied to the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-22 and F-35
Last edited by zero-one on 01 Jul 2018, 14:39, edited 2 times in total.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21746
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post01 Jul 2018, 14:36

weasel1962 wrote:Growth 1A for F-35B. 5% increase in hover thrust besides the 10% increase in overall thrust.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... e-upgrades

Why post the same information that has been posted already two weeks ago on page two of this thread?

viewtopic.php?f=56&t=53226&p=396026&hilit=Kjelgaard#p396026
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7835
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post01 Jul 2018, 19:04

zero-one wrote:Why all the thrust improvements for the F-35?

The F-35 really cut it close to the weight max for SDD. The more thrust that can be added (along with fuel savings) gives them a larger margin to work with in future blocks when planning upgrades.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1956
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post01 Jul 2018, 19:50

TEG once left open the idea that the F135 engine had a lot of unexplored potential years ago. Perhaps the earliest models were the safe models with regards to meeting requirements.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2919
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post01 Jul 2018, 23:07

More thrust is always a good thing. It allows shorter, and heavier takeoff weights, quicker acceleration, quicker climb rates, improved sustained turn performance, quicker regaining of energy. In addition to improved kinematics and staying ahead of weight growth, more power is available for avionics/directed energy weapons, etc.... Instead of playing catch up with competitors/foes, we're being proactive, and and staying ahead of the curve.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Engine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests